After a couple walks and a 2-base wild pitch, Jeremy ends things with a strikeout. Ball game.

Our relief corp continues to be inconsistent. Hopefully, McCanna or McDowell can earn the Sunday starter spot within a couple weeks so we can move Big John Simms back into the closer role.

Regardless, important win tonight against a very solid UT-SA club. We took care of business on this 7-game home stand as we had to do. The offfense, while still nerve-rackingly ineffcient and needing to improve both it's plate discipline and bunting proficiency, has begun to show signs of life. Pitching and defense is still our strong suit, but we definitely need to solidify the bullpen.

Game Ball #1: Geoff Perrott (4-4, 2 runs scored, 1 RBI)-- he's now our leading hitter with an AVG > .360 and an OBP > .465. He's always been a quality defensive catcher and exhibited patience at the plate, but he has become an excellent contact hitter, particularly adept on taking the ball up the middle. Very impressive.

Game Ball #2: Chase McDowell (W, 3-1, 6.2 IP, 4 hits, 3 runs, 2 BBs, 3 Ks)-- pitched one-hit, shutout ball through the first six innings before very clearly hitting the wall. His best outing since the Cal complete game shutout.

Game Ball #3: Could go to any number of players, as almost everybody contributed at the plate, but I'm giving it to Michael Aquino (2-4, 2 RBIs) as his two early singles brought home key run support for McDowell.

Terrific win, especially the way we responded after almost blowing the 5-run lead in the 7th inning. Win streak now at 7 games as we head into the all-important conference play. Team should be going into Hattiesburg confident once again, and playing a better brand of baseball (but still with signficant room for improvement). Let's continue to prove ourselves road warriors and commence CUSA play with a road series win. Go Owls!

Memo to Wayne:

Schedule bunt practice.

(03-20-2013 08:38 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Why does Coach go with a guy who has struggled with his control all season in that situation?

We need Rutter, and he needs to pitch to get back to his previous form.

The list if other options is not extensive, too.

(03-20-2013 10:21 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 08:38 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Why does Coach go with a guy who has struggled with his control all season in that situation?

We need Rutter, and he needs to pitch to get back to his previous form.

The list if other options is not extensive, too.

No argument here. However, let him pitch back into form by coming in to start innings; not when we can ill-afford free passes.

Great to read about the great starting pitching and run production the Owls had tonight. Glad to see so many different owls with hits. McDowell is money. This offense is coming together to produce just enough to put together a nice win streak. The bullpen is still a work in progress, as it is most years.

I look forward to see if the Owls can stay hot while hitting the road.

(03-20-2013 10:26 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 10:21 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 08:38 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Why does Coach go with a guy who has struggled with his control all season in that situation?

We need Rutter, and he needs to pitch to get back to his previous form.

The list if other options is not extensive, too.

No argument here. However, let him pitch back into form by coming in to start innings; not when we can ill-afford free passes.

Why does it seem that collectively we forget that the correct decision may not produce the desired result in baseball?

(03-20-2013 11:08 PM)13thOwl Wrote:  Why does it seem that collectively we forget that the correct decision may not produce the desired result in baseball?

I have heard the theory that the human brain is sort of evolutionarily programmed to think int erms of cause and effect, and is very bad at thinking of outcomes as probabilistic rather than deterministic. So much so that we to tend to invent "causes" for just about everything.

At first, it might seem that the ability to reason probabilistically would be a trait that was highly selected for in human evolution, since, after all, surviving and thriving as a human being is a very probabilistic business. But perhaps the historical reality was that cause-and-effect reasoning was itself such a huge selective advantage that it was more than enough to make man king of the planet, and the incremental selective advantage of being able to reason probabilistically was pretty small.

(03-20-2013 11:23 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 11:08 PM)13thOwl Wrote:  Why does it seem that collectively we forget that the correct decision may not produce the desired result in baseball?

I have heard the theory that the human brain is sort of evolutionarily programmed to think int erms of cause and effect, and is very bad at thinking of outcomes as probabilistic rather than deterministic. So much so that we to tend to invent "causes" for just about everything.

At first, it might seem that the ability to reason probabilistically would be a trait that was highly selected for in human evolution, since, after all, surviving and thriving as a human being is a very probabilistic business. But perhaps the historical reality was that cause-and-effect reasoning was itself such a huge selective advantage that it was more than enough to make man king of the planet, and the incremental selective advantage of being able to reason probabilistically was pretty small.

George,
Can you 'splain that to me in words that some of us older grads can undastand?

(03-20-2013 10:09 PM)Hardball Owl Wrote:  Memo to Wayne:

Schedule bunt practice.

Sounds like that's what he was doing tonight (not that they don't practice bunting in practice, but that's still not the same as doing it 'live'). And I think that's fine.

When Coach doesn't bunt earlier this season, some of the board goes nuts because 'why don't we realize that we are not a 3-run HR ball club anymore? Why can't we see we need to play some small ball, and play to the situation?"

Fair enough, but. . . . .

So when we fail to bunt, there's much weeping and gnashing of teeth. Maybe the reason that coach wasn't bunting more earlier is that he felt that our team batting average, even when bad, gave us a better chance swinging away then bunting. I've given it some thought, and I've come to the conclusion that he sees a lot more of the player's bunting capabilities than we do.

This game, after a failed bunt, there are cries 'can't we see the situation called for a sacrifice fly."

then an inning or so later, we score 'only' one run . . . on a sacrifice fly no less . . . and the predictable post - - 'again we fail to execute.'

one inning we're screwing up because we failed to bunt and don't order up the 'on demand SF'. The next we're failing to execute when we do score on a SF (after another failed bunt). At some point then don't we get to credit someone for executing when they deliver the 'demanded' SF?

Or is it only 'executing' when a SF is produced in very specific conditions?

I realize that this is the result of spur of the moment, emotion filled posting in the heat of a game.

And given our offense to date, I hardly blame coach for trying to manufacture a run or three by bunting, particularly when our starter was stringing together shutout innings early on.

(03-20-2013 11:08 PM)13thOwl Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 10:26 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 10:21 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 08:38 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Why does Coach go with a guy who has struggled with his control all season in that situation?

We need Rutter, and he needs to pitch to get back to his previous form.

The list if other options is not extensive, too.

No argument here. However, let him pitch back into form by coming in to start innings; not when we can ill-afford free passes.

Why does it seem that collectively we forget that the correct decision may not produce the desired result in baseball?

+1

Keep in mind also that those other guys are on scholarship too, and they got those scholarships by being good enough to get them. So execution on both sides becomes the key. Just like play calling in football. I'm guessing Wayne knows the capabilities of his guys better than we do. I'm guessing he knows the capabilities of the OTHER guys a LOT better than we do, thanks to scouting reports. As long as he appears to be playing to those capabilities, and it looks to me as if he is, then I am fine living with those decisions and the consequences.

(03-21-2013 05:19 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 10:09 PM)Hardball Owl Wrote:  Memo to Wayne:

Schedule bunt practice.

Sounds like that's what he was doing tonight (not that they don't practice bunting in practice, but that's still not the same as doing it 'live'). And I think that's fine.

When Coach doesn't bunt earlier this season, some of the board goes nuts because 'why don't we realize that we are not a 3-run HR ball club anymore? Why can't we see we need to play some small ball, and play to the situation?"

Fair enough, but. . . . .

So when we fail to bunt, there's much weeping and gnashing of teeth. Maybe the reason that coach wasn't bunting more earlier is that he felt that our team batting average, even when bad, gave us a better chance swinging away then bunting. I've given it some thought, and I've come to the conclusion that he sees a lot more of the player's bunting capabilities than we do.

This game, after a failed bunt, there are cries 'can't we see the situation called for a sacrifice fly."

then an inning or so later, we score 'only' one run . . . on a sacrifice fly no less . . . and the predictable post - - 'again we fail to execute.'

one inning we're screwing up because we failed to bunt and don't order up the 'on demand SF'. The next we're failing to execute when we do score on a SF (after another failed bunt). At some point then don't we get to credit someone for executing when they deliver the 'demanded' SF?

Or is it only 'executing' when a SF is produced in very specific conditions?

I realize that this is the result of spur of the moment, emotion filled posting in the heat of a game.

And given our offense to date, I hardly blame coach for trying to manufacture a run or three by bunting, particularly when our starter was stringing together shutout innings early on.

Good grief, Rick. Any team at this level should be bunting successfully at a least a 75% clip (and that is a lowball, bare minimum number). Just look at what our opposition's success rate is, and we're usually a better defensive team than our opponents. Stop making excuses or rationalizing our sub-par ability to bunt consistently. And make no mistake about it, bunting is a learned skill; if you practice it and emphasize the correct techniques to employ you WILL improve your ability. We still have far too many guys who when sacrificing, instead of fully squaring around, committing to the bunt, and "sacrificing" themselves, are waiting to the last minute and only partially squaring around. The techniques for bunting for a hit are very much different than laying down a sac bunt; in the latter case, you should be fully squaring around well in advance so that you're in the proper position. You're not trying to deceive anyone. Only a couple of our guys do that. And this has been the case the past 3 - 4 seasons. Consequently, I have to seriously question whether we spend much time teaching proper bunting techniques.

Again, don't give me the same tired explanation that most of these guys were the #3 or #4 hitter on their high school team and never were asked to bunt. The exact same thing could be said of every player on every other Top 100 D-1 team...yet we appear to be one of the few who cannot bunt consistently. Again, it's a learned skill that can most definitely be developed and perfected with practice.

(03-21-2013 06:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Keep in mind also that those other guys are on scholarship too, and they got those scholarships by being good enough to get them. So execution on both sides becomes the key. Just like play calling in football. I'm guessing Wayne knows the capabilities of his guys better than we do. I'm guessing he knows the capabilities of the OTHER guys a LOT better than we do, thanks to scouting reports. As long as he appears to be playing to those capabilities, and it looks to me as if he is, then I am fine living with those decisions and the consequences.

The scouting report on UT-SA indicated that their 3B was a potential defensive liability. We should have been bunting to him and forcing him to make a play. Instead, time and time again our guys called upon to bunt were NOT fully squaring around and getting themselves in a position to lay down the bunt. Stop the deception and square around when asked to sacrifice. It's amazing how that will dramatically improve one's result.

Amazing how we can't just enjoy a nice win, isn't it?

(03-21-2013 07:31 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  Amazing how we can't just enjoy a nice win, isn't it?

I'm going to wholeheartedly agree with you (rare, I know). 7 in a row and this last one against a pretty good team. Well done Baseball Owls!

(03-21-2013 07:20 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  And make no mistake about it, bunting is a learned skill; if you practice it and emphasize the correct techniques to employ you WILL improve your ability.

Also, essentially every player who steps into the box for the Owls was a bopper in high school. If he ever bunted before, it was at the Area Code Games or some other high end summer deal with wood bats.

So the bar goes up and kids' roles evolve. I'm with Walt on this one--if our guys don't execute the bunt effectively when the situation calls for it, it will cost us games.

Walt, you have pointed to the inexperience of our lineup in other posts. My guess is that that is relevant to bunting as well. The period of effectiveness earlier in the season that had you excited might have been an anomaly.

(03-21-2013 12:00 AM)RiceDad Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 11:23 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 11:08 PM)13thOwl Wrote:  Why does it seem that collectively we forget that the correct decision may not produce the desired result in baseball?

I have heard the theory that the human brain is sort of evolutionarily programmed to think int erms of cause and effect, and is very bad at thinking of outcomes as probabilistic rather than deterministic. So much so that we to tend to invent "causes" for just about everything.

At first, it might seem that the ability to reason probabilistically would be a trait that was highly selected for in human evolution, since, after all, surviving and thriving as a human being is a very probabilistic business. But perhaps the historical reality was that cause-and-effect reasoning was itself such a huge selective advantage that it was more than enough to make man king of the planet, and the incremental selective advantage of being able to reason probabilistically was pretty small.

George,
Can you 'splain that to me in words that some of us older grads can undastand?

Unfortunately, I think that's about the best I can do -- the "soft" sciences are not myreally thing

(03-20-2013 08:35 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 08:32 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 08:29 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 08:27 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 08:15 PM)grol Wrote:  Now the scorer has taken away the UTSA E's.

That's just wrong. CF boot in 1st allowed runner to advance to 2nd on single to center in 1st inning.

That one stands. He took away the E-5 and gave Rat a hit.

Not according to the scoreboard

The E I'm referring to was an E8 in the first. Someone's asleep upstairs.

The box score on riceowls.com looks to have corrected the scoring on last night's game.

UTSA - 5 9 2
Rice - 11 16 0

From the play-by-play...

Rice 1st - Byrd flied out to lf. Stainback singled, advanced to second on an error by cf. Stringer struck out looking. Aquino grounded out to ss. 0 runs, 1 hit, 1 error, 1 LOB.

and

Rice 7th - Stringer grounded out to 2b. Aquino grounded out to ss. Teykl walked. Cook hit by pitch; Teykl advanced to second. Ewing singled, advanced to second on an error by rf, RBI; Cook scored; Teykl scored. Cox to p for Sharp. Ratterree singled, advanced to second on the throw, RBI; Ewing scored. Perrott singled up the middle, RBI; Ratterree scored. Perrott advanced to second on a wild pitch. Perrott advanced to third on a wild pitch. Byrd doubled, RBI; Perrott scored. Sefcik III to p for Cox. Stainback grounded out to ss. 5 runs, 4 hits, 1 error, 1 LOB.

(03-21-2013 08:08 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 12:00 AM)RiceDad Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 11:23 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 11:08 PM)13thOwl Wrote:  Why does it seem that collectively we forget that the correct decision may not produce the desired result in baseball?

I have heard the theory that the human brain is sort of evolutionarily programmed to think int erms of cause and effect, and is very bad at thinking of outcomes as probabilistic rather than deterministic. So much so that we to tend to invent "causes" for just about everything.

At first, it might seem that the ability to reason probabilistically would be a trait that was highly selected for in human evolution, since, after all, surviving and thriving as a human being is a very probabilistic business. But perhaps the historical reality was that cause-and-effect reasoning was itself such a huge selective advantage that it was more than enough to make man king of the planet, and the incremental selective advantage of being able to reason probabilistically was pretty small.

George,
Can you 'splain that to me in words that some of us older grads can undastand?

Unfortunately, I think that's about the best I can do -- the "soft" sciences are not myreally thing ;)

How about this ... Sometimes we're just too damn sure of ourselves.

(03-21-2013 08:07 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 07:20 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  And make no mistake about it, bunting is a learned skill; if you practice it and emphasize the correct techniques to employ you WILL improve your ability.

Also, essentially every player who steps into the box for the Owls was a bopper in high school. If he ever bunted before, it was at the Area Code Games or some other high end summer deal with wood bats.

So the bar goes up and kids' roles evolve. I'm with Walt on this one--if our guys don't execute the bunt effectively when the situation calls for it, it will cost us games.

Walt, you have pointed to the inexperience of our lineup in other posts. My guess is that that is relevant to bunting as well. The period of effectiveness earlier in the season that had you excited might have been an anomaly.

But shouldn't we eschew the bunting in game until out team can actually get a bunt down with consistency?

I understand that these players should be able to do this task, but until they prove they can do it in game, I assume that they are also not executing in practice. If that's the case, keep working at it in practice, but don't waste at bats trying to do something that we can't even execute in practice yet.

Now, if they are showing ability to get their bunts down with consistency in practice, then I wonder what's changing their approach in game.